On Apr 6, 10:03 pm, Canny <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 6, 9:11 pm, John J Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 5:51 pm, Canny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have some ideas about creating new firebug debugging features. For > > > example, given a downloaded web page, beautify (www.jsbeautifier.org) > > > various contents (html/javascript/css) before the user is allowed to > > > debug the web application. This should be very useful to work with > > > very "ugly"-formatted third party contents. As another example, I want > > > To be successful you have to intercept the js code before firefox > > compiles it. You can get most cases by intercepting net traffic (see > > net.js and component/firebug-channel-listener.js or firebug-http- > > observer.js) but recognizing JS requires parsing HTML at least to > > some simple degree. > > Since the Script panel does display JavaScript code, is there a string > object representing the displayed JS code? Can I just pass that > string object to jsbeautifier to obtain a well-formatted JS code > string to display, given that the transformation happens before any > other > processing on the string such as syntax coloring?
Sure, but the line numbers will be all wrong and Firebug will not work correctly as a result. > > > > to develop an automated tool that produces traces (an example trace > > > could be the intermediate presentation of all of the executed > > > javascript bytecode instructions along with their parameter values) > > > You can trace the function calls easily but producing a useful UI for > > a complex application is difficult. We have no access to the > > bytecodes. > > I don't quite need a complex UI. Just want to allow firebug to record > the trace > without human intervention. It would also be fine even if the JS > bytecode level > detail is not available in the trace. JavaScript source code level > trace (e.g., recording > every JS statement that has been executed, along with the values > involved in > executing the statement) can also be very useful. Even a trace of all > functions > being invoked could be very useful, but it's better be the case that > functions in the trace is > identified by some unique internal IDs, rather than superficial alias > names. In addition, it's > better be the case that the values of functions' true parameters can > also be recorded in the > trace, so that it's easier to see how certain values are used by the > program. Well I don't understand how this can be interesting without human intervention. What is the purpose of a trace no one reads? > > -- Yan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en.
